On 11/17/2015 10:23 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I was talking to Dmitri Pal (from FreeIPA) at LISA, and he suggested
that rather than having people vote on individual talks, we could have
people propose _topics_, and then we'd have a community-wide vote on
those - separate from specific speakers or talks. From that, we could
have a "skeletal" schedule of tracks and talks in certain areas. Then,
we could have interested/knowledgeable people in each selected topic
fill that out... maybe provide an ordered list of recommended
talks/sessions, which would go to the Flock committee for final
That seems like a recipe for disaster. I've never seen any other event
work that way, and I do not think that is a good plan going forward. It
increases my workload significantly, and the gain is minimal.
Realistically, we do not need a full track on any topic. If anything, I
think we want less talks, and more workshops.
I'm in support of few talks with higher attendance. The one
got from a couple of people about the last Flock is that they didn't
get the audience they expected. I also like "more doing things", but I
don't want the proven success of pre-planned sessions from Flock the
last couple of years to fall back into the less-productive chaos we
were seeing at FUDCon.
Agreed. I think we have a good formula that just needs some tweaks.